Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[erfalf]

I hope Dr. Spencer has kept his resume up to date.  He's going to need it but it probably won't help him much.

If this is a joke, I get it. His opinion probably isn't too popular with NASA.

But, with all due respect, I believe I would take his opinion over yours any day of the week. Contrary to popular belief, scientist do not all believe in catastrophic global warming. And to top it off, the ones that don't believe are actually quit intelligent. They are not the knuckle dragging slow talking simple minded folk they are portrayed as by the casual AGW proponents. Plus not many are from Oklahoma, so that ought to give them instant cred, right? jk 

Honestly though, about the time you guys stop degrading anyone with a dissenting opinion is about the time you will be taken seriously by those who are skeptical of AGW. Until then you will never "convert the non-believers" because they will not listen to anything you say, whether it is true or not.

[nathanm]

It's not a trick question.  The answer is obviously NOT ZERO or there would be no issues, unless Jim Inhofe is correct.

Of course the answer is zero. Energy isn't the issue, greenhouse gases are the issue.

[erfalf]

I disagree that "that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works".  If Fred down the road reduces his pollution below the target, he is going to save that excess for when the target is lowered again if he is smart.  If an entity doesn't use enough energy to to meet their cap, how does selling their excess allowance help stop global climate issues?  It doesn't, it just transfers money. What you see as a solution, I see as an allowance for everyone around the world to pollute the maximum allowed by law whether it be in person or by proxy.

I am totally with you on this one. If it is as bad as they say, just make it illegal. It would lend the movement far more credibility. As it stands, everything is far too political. The first inclination for people is to say tax it. That's not a solution, if the define the problem the way they do.

In that same vein, I am really against the so called "sin tax" on things like cigarettes and alcohol. If it is considered to be "bad" then make it illegal. This is where I differ with the Republicans greatly, I guess the Democrats too for that matter. Both sides would like to legislate their form of morality. I know hard drugs are illegal, and I struggle with how to look at that, because generally speaking drugs only harm the user. I generally err toward people being able to do what they want as long as it does not harm anyone else. You know the old saying "my freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins". People will say, well drugs will lead to others deaths too. But so do alot of things we do. We haven't stopped people from driving yet, even though in many cases people have caused the death of others while doing it.

[nathanm]

I disagree that "that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works".  If Fred down the road reduces his pollution below the target, he is going to save that excess for when the target is lowered again if he is smart.  If an entity doesn't use enough energy to to meet their cap, how does selling their excess allowance help stop global climate issues?

The entity gets to the point of being below the cap through efficiency improvements beyond that which is legally required. And setting a limit to the allowed GHG pollution is exactly what we need to do. There is a finite limit to the yearly GHG production the planet can tolerate. We need, collectively, to not generate more than that. Granted, our estimates may not be perfect, but they can be adjusted going forward as new data comes in.

And why should GHG emissions be flat out illegal? The problem isn't that there are GHG emissions, the problem is that there is too much GHG emission. I'm not sure why leasing of assets is so controversial with you guys?

[Red Arrow]

Of course the answer is zero. Energy isn't the issue, greenhouse gases are the issue.

What are you doing in IT?  You need to be pushing your already available in mass quantities, economical, no GHG energy solution and get rid of oil, natural gas, and any other hydrocarbon.  Since water vapor is a GHG, you cannot even burn hydrogen since it makes water.  You'll be richer than Warren Buffet.

For the rest of us, the energy we use is overwhelmingly responsible for the GHG problem.  Either that, or again, Jim Inhofe is correct.

If you want to play the semantics game, OK.

Find out how many hydrocarbons the world can burn, creating GHG, and how to allot that amount equitably since we don't have a ready replacement in most cases at this time.

[Red Arrow]

The entity gets to the point of being below the cap through efficiency improvements beyond that which is legally required. And setting a limit to the allowed GHG pollution is exactly what we need to do. There is a finite limit to the yearly GHG production the planet can tolerate. We need, collectively, to not generate more than that. Granted, our estimates may not be perfect, but they can be adjusted going forward as new data comes in.

And why should GHG emissions be flat out illegal? The problem isn't that there are GHG emissions, the problem is that there is too much GHG emission. I'm not sure why leasing of assets is so controversial with you guys?

GHG emissions should only be flat out illegal to prevent global climate issues.  Since we cannot get there, yet, why should any entity be allowed to emit GHG above a certain efficiency?  Just because 5 people don't have a car should not allow a 6th person to have a car with an oil smoke cloud behind it.  There is no global difference with an oil smoke car in central Africa than there is in California. 

When automotive pollution controls were in their infancy, all cars were allowed a certain amount of grams of pollutants per mile (or something close to that) regardless of engine size.  That's one reason why European and Asian cars more easily met the requirements with their small engines compared to the 6.6 litre engines a lot of American cars had.  The little engines emitted less exhaust.  Honda, Toyota, and Nissan didn't get to sell pollution credits to Ford, Chrysler, and GM.   The thing that irritated me was the people complaining that American engineers were far inferior to the Asian and European engineers when in reality, the American engineers had to be 2 to 3 times better just to meet the same requirements while using the big engines that most Americans wanted.

[Red Arrow]

If this is a joke, I get it. His opinion probably isn't too popular with NASA.

I wrote it somewhat as a joke but I believe there may be more truth in it than we would like.

I believe there is a retaliatory mode of operation within all the Global climate issue proponents.   You know, consensus, the science is proven crowd.

[shadows]

Anyway, how do you explain that Arkansas and Missouri do not cave in since they are riddled with underground caverns? Or Colorado? My best bet for impending catastrophe would be Yellowstone. It is due for activity.

...
Standing on the last remains of the ice age in New Mexico, in the ice cave.
And walking across the Natural Bridge over big springs in Missouri which flows white river.
Having walked down in the Carlsbad cave in Mew Mexico.
It is estimated the dinosaur disappeared some 60 million years before man appeared and fifty thousand centuries before the automobile appeared.
This Planet is covered with unexplained quirks of what we call nature.
Are we to believe that the dinosaur farted gas enough to created, (among many more) these phenomenon's?
These represents the unexplainable miniature acts of where in the multi-billion freaks of nature we are limited by our life span the ability to solve.
We are in the possible middle of the centuries old warming tend of the last ice age and we are unable to live with each other when it is calculated when it is finished the planets livable surface will be covered with six or more inches of sea water.
   

 

     

[nathanm]

What are you doing in IT?  You need to be pushing your already available in mass quantities, economical, no GHG energy solution

Think of the system as a whole. The energy source itself need not be close to carbon-neutral, although it could be, so long as we either capture the GHGs either before they escape into the atmosphere or after.

If you insist on the unrealistic goal of using industrial processes that emit no carbon we'll obviously make no progress, and we'll lose really nifty things like concrete. If, on the other hand, you examine the system as a whole, you'll see that it's not actually that hard of a problem to solve. Expensive, perhaps, but money isn't really an issue at the moment. You may not have noticed this, but people are presently quite happy to pay us to hold on to their money for a while.

[Red Arrow]

Think of the system as a whole. The energy source itself need not be close to carbon-neutral, although it could be, so long as we either capture the GHGs either before they escape into the atmosphere or after.

If you insist on the unrealistic goal of using industrial processes that emit no carbon we'll obviously make no progress, and we'll lose really nifty things like concrete. If, on the other hand, you examine the system as a whole, you'll see that it's not actually that hard of a problem to solve. Expensive, perhaps, but money isn't really an issue at the moment. You may not have noticed this, but people are presently quite happy to pay us to hold on to their money for a while.

I am thinking of the system as a whole.  I am not insisting on no carbon emissions.  I am insisting that merely moving money around does not solve any problems.  If the GHG problem is solved by merely having someone pay someone else for permission to pollute, there is no problem.  The insistence that a subsistence society needs to have the right to emit the same carbon/GHG footprint as a more technological society or be compensated is something on which we will disagree.  The concept that on a smaller scale, Fred's neighbor is going to willingly let Fred have carbon credits for less than it cost "Joe" to get them is also something on which we will disagree. 

[nathanm]

I am thinking of the system as a whole.  I am not insisting on no carbon emissions.  I am insisting that merely moving money around does not solve any problems.  If the GHG problem is solved by merely having someone pay someone else for permission to pollute, there is no problem.  The insistence that a subsistence society needs to have the right to emit the same carbon/GHG footprint as a more technological society or be compensated is something on which we will disagree.  The concept that on a smaller scale, Fred's neighbor is going to willingly let Fred have carbon credits for less than it cost "Joe" to get them is also something on which we will disagree. 

Of course you disagree with the straw man you're building! The credits to be sold don't come out of my donkey, they come from Joe choosing to upgrade his factory in the first place.

What gives us the right to emit more than anybody else? Because we feel like it? We were here first? We're just special? What's up with that? Besides, the flow of funds their way from carbon credits would give them the money they need to invest in non-polluting infrastructure.

Regardless, I don't much care for the specifics of cap and trade. It's fine, but there are other ways to limit emissions. I don't really buy that the objection has much, if anything, to do with the mechanics of cap and trade. Whatever, at least we don't have to worry about sea level rise here in Oklahoma.

[Red Arrow]

Of course you disagree with the straw man you're building! The credits to be sold don't come out of my donkey, they come from Joe choosing to upgrade his factory in the first place.

Straw man.  You're pretty liberal with that term.  Of course nothing comes out of your donkey, you don't buy anything from Joe so his cost to upgrade doesn't cost you anything.  You also don't buy anything from anybody who buys things from Joe.......

What gives us the right to emit more than anybody else? Because we feel like it? We were here first? We're just special?

Because we are always the first called on to help in world disasters.  Because we grow more food than we need.  The next time some obscure country with minimal GHG emissions needs anything we should tell them to go .....  because we shouldn't have anything to send them since we have no right to pollute any more per capita than anyone else in the world to create those excess goods.  Maybe we should scale back and tell the world to ......  They don't like us anyway.   Let them starve. 

Regardless, I don't much care for the specifics of cap and trade. It's fine, but there are other ways to limit emissions. I don't really buy that the objection has much, if anything, to do with the mechanics of cap and trade. Whatever, at least we don't have to worry about sea level rise here in Oklahoma.

I agree that the mechanics of cap and trade are not the problem.  It's the whole concept about the trade part that is wrong.

As I said, you and I will just have to disagree.

[nathanm]

Straw man.  You're pretty liberal with that term.  Of course nothing comes out of your donkey, you don't buy anything from Joe so his cost to upgrade doesn't cost you anything.  You also don't buy anything from anybody who buys things from Joe.......

Joe may well decide to upgrade his factory anyway. He certainly doesn't have to. He does so because the credits themselves or a combination of credits plus some other ROI make it worthwhile. Just like any other business decision. Maybe he doesn't, in which case Fred either has to live with his present capacity or make his own upgrades so that he can produce more with the same GHG emissions.

Because we are always the first called on to help in world disasters.  Because we grow more food than we need.  The next time some obscure country with minimal GHG emissions needs anything we should tell them to go .....  because we shouldn't have anything to send them since we have no right to pollute any more per capita than anyone else in the world to create those excess goods.  Maybe we should scale back and tell the world to ......  They don't like us anyway.   Let them starve. 

I still don't get why you refuse to recognize that production and GHG emissions are separate things. We can still produce just as much as we do now and increase productive activity as much as we like in the future. We just have to do it by either increasing process efficiency or through capture/sequestration.

Your position sounds like to me like that of those who said CAFE would make it impossible to have nice cars.

[Red Arrow]

Joe may well decide to upgrade his factory anyway. He certainly doesn't have to. He does so because the credits themselves or a combination of credits plus some other ROI make it worthwhile. Just like any other business decision. Maybe he doesn't, in which case Fred either has to live with his present capacity or make his own upgrades so that he can produce more with the same GHG emissions.

I still don't get why you refuse to recognize that production and GHG emissions are separate things. We can still produce just as much as we do now and increase productive activity as much as we like in the future. We just have to do it by either increasing process efficiency or through capture/sequestration.

Your position sounds like to me like that of those who said CAFE would make it impossible to have nice cars.

Joe may decide to upgrade his facility based on ROI.  If that ROI includes selling credits at a profit, it will be done.  Chances are very good that he will want to sell those credits at a profit.  That will most likely mean that Fred can upgrade his factory less expensively than buying credits from Joe.  Fred can probably buy credits from someone who needs to make no investment to obtain those credits.  That's where the no net gain comes from.

I don't understand why you cannot accept that our present energy/GHG situation is one and the same.  We need to work toward less GHG vs. energy consumption but we are not there and you know it.

Multiple cup holders, GPS navigation systems that won't be supported by the manufacturers in 10 years, phone systems that should be illegal because they are more distracting than almost anything else I can think of in a car, leather seating, tinted windows, a 10 speaker premium sound system, cruise control, air bags, and a gazillion other special features have little or nothing to do with CAFE.  Go internet shopping for a new car.  Almost none of them promote performance related to CAFE.   There are certainly some performance cars out there. A lot of them don't get very good gas mileage.  The wimpy cars that counteract them is kind of like selling carbon credits.  They are also typically not something I am interested in.  "Sport editions" are typically an cosmetic package and frequently don't even include or mention a suspension upgrade much less an engine upgrade.  I am still distrustful of small displacement engines with multiple turbochargers regarding longevity. High BMEPs and long life typically don't co-exist.  The horsepower to move a car is actually quite small compared to peak HP ratings.  I have occasion to tow a trailer and am also interested in low end torque.  The BMW twin turbo 3.0 litre engine has gobs of torque, but at what cost to engine life?  It may be OK but before I spend $40K, I want to know the engine won't shell itself out in short order.   If you think a nice car is cup holders and a pretty paint job, you are right about CAFE not affecting nice cars.  If you want some performance, buy now.  The early 70s are about to return.

[nathanm]

Joe may decide to upgrade his facility based on ROI.  If that ROI includes selling credits at a profit, it will be done.  Chances are very good that he will want to sell those credits at a profit.  That will most likely mean that Fred can upgrade his factory less expensively than buying credits from Joe.  Fred can probably buy credits from someone who needs to make no investment to obtain those credits.  That's where the no net gain comes from.

He might also look at the present value of the credits and decide it's best to sell them for less than he "paid" for them (which is actually what he paid for them, since he also got a more efficient factory with a lower energy bill out of the deal)

I don't understand why you cannot accept that our present energy/GHG situation is one and the same.  We need to work toward less GHG vs. energy consumption but we are not there and you know it.

If we were there, this conversation would be pointless. Already much of our energy is generated at a fairly low GHG cost, we just need more solar, wind, and nukes. We could be there in 20 years if we actually worked at it. We seem to prefer prepackaged "solutions" that don't actually solve anything but sound good, though.